[auth48] Re: Document intake questions about draft-ietf-dnsop-ds-automation

[Peter Thomassen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sarah,

Yes. The document does not use <tt> really, except by incorporation of this term from the referenced RFC.

(Apologies for claiming earlier that <tt> is not used; I had searched in the HTML rendering where that had been transformed into <code>.)

Thanks,
Peter


On 5/26/26 16:46, Sarah Tarrant wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> Regarding the test styling question, we only found one instance of "<tt>" in Section 4.2.2. Is this intentional?
> 
> Current (xml: <tt>&lt;info&gt;</tt>):
>     When using the Extensible
>     Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730], the domain <info> command
>     described in Section 2.1.1.2 of [RFC9803] can be used by the
>     registrar to obtain the registry's TTL policy.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Sarah Tarrant
> RFC Production Center
> 
>> On May 23, 2026, at 8:09 AM, Peter Thomassen <peter=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear RFC Editor,
>>
>> On 5/22/26 23:26, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> * If you need/want to make updates to your document, we encourage you to make those
>>> changes and resubmit to the Datatracker. This allows for the easy creation of diffs,
>>> which facilitates review by interested parties (e.g., authors, ADs, doc shepherds).
>>> * If you feel no updates to the document are necessary, please reply with any
>>> applicable rationale/comments.
>>
>> No updates are necessary.
>>
>>> 1) As there may have been multiple updates made to the document during Last Call,
>>> please review the current version of the document:
>>> * Is the text in the Abstract still accurate?
>>> * Are the Authors' Addresses, Contributors, and Acknowledgments
>>> sections current?
>>
>> All correct and current.
>>
>>> 2) Please share any style information that could help us with editing your
>>> document. For example:
>>> * Is your document's format or its terminology based on another document,
>>> WG style guide, etc.? If so, please provide a pointer to that information
>>> (e.g., "This document's terminology should match DNS terminology in
>>> RFC 9499." or "This document uses the style info at
>>> <https://httpwg.org/admin/editors/style-guide>.").
>>
>> The document uses some (but not all) terminology from RFC 7344. For details, see Section 2 of the draft.
>>
>>> * Is there a general pattern of capitalization or formatting of terms that
>>> editors can follow (e.g., "Field names should have initial capitalization."
>>> or  "Parameter names should be in double quotes." or "<tt/> should be used
>>> for token names." etc.)?
>>
>> Not really. Perhaps terms defined in Section 2 could be capitalized throughout, to make them more recognizable.
>>
>>> 3) Please carefully review the entries and their URLs in the
>>> References section with the following in mind. Note that we will
>>> update as follows unless we hear otherwise at this time:
>>> * References to obsoleted RFCs will be updated to point to the current
>>> RFC on the topic in accordance with Section 4.8.6 of RFC 7322
>>> (RFC Style Guide).
>>> * References to I-Ds that have been replaced by another I-D will be
>>> updated to point to the replacement I-D.
>>> * References to documents from other organizations that have been
>>> superseded will be updated to their superseding version.
>>> Note: To check for outdated RFC and I-D references, you can use
>>> idnits <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits>. You can also help the
>>> IETF Tools Team by testing idnits3 <https://author-tools.ietf.org/idnits3/>
>>> with your document and reporting any issues to them.
>>> 4) Is there any text that requires special handling? For example:
>>> * Are there any sections that were contentious when the document was drafted?
>>> * Are any sections that need to be removed before publication marked as such
>>> (e.g., Implementation Status sections (per RFC 7942)).
>>> * Are there any instances of repeated text/sections that should be edited
>>> the same way?
>>
>> Sections *.2 corresponds to Appendix A.*, where all recommendations are consolidated for easy orientation during implementation. I've verified corresponding sections are are identical. Any changes made in these sections need to be reflected accordingly.
>>
>>> 5) This document uses one or more of the following text styles.
>>> Are these elements used consistently?
>>> * fixed width font (<tt/> or `)
>>> * italics (<em/> or *)
>>> * bold (<strong/> or **)
>>
>> I don't think it does.
>>
>>> 6) This document is part of Cluster 575:
>>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/575/
>>> * To help the reader understand the content of the cluster, is there a
>>> document in the cluster that should be read first? Next? If so, please provide
>>> the order and we will provide RFC numbers for the documents accordingly.
>>> If order is not important, please let us know.
>>
>> The other document is about to be published as RFC 9975, and can be read immediately. This draft just references it as any other RFC (that is, the cluster needs no special handling).
>>
>>> * Is there any text that has been repeated within the cluster document that
>>> should be edited in the same way (for instance, parallel introductory text or
>>> Security Considerations)?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> * For more information about clusters, see:
>>> https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfc-publication-process#clusters
>>> * For a list of all current clusters, see:
>>> https://queue.rfc-editor.org/clusters/
>>> 7) Is there anything else that the RPC should be aware of while editing this
>>> document?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best,
>> Peter
> 
> 

-- 
Like our community service? 💛
Please consider donating at

https://desec.io/

deSEC e.V.
Möckernstraße 74
10965 Berlin
Germany

Vorstandsvorsitz: Nils Wisiol
Registergericht: AG Berlin (Charlottenburg) VR 37525